Good Article on why not having a college playoff system

When it comes to the horror of bringing a playoff system to the big boys of college football, there are several things for members of the Knee-Jerk
Society of America to think about. The problem is, they don't wish to think. They prefer emotion. Mostly, they fume over the current system that
chooses a national champion through a combination of polls and computers with the so-called Bowl Championship Series. They say a playoff system is the
best way to determine a champion on the field, and they are correct. But only if you ignore things you have to ... think about. For instance: Name
those screaming the loudest about a playoff system for the Alabamas, the Ohio States and the Southern Californias. The fans? Yep, because they are,
well, fans. The coaches? Uh-huh. In their minds, a playoff system gives them the chance to add millions to their millions. The media? Definitely.
They have airwaves, cyberspace and newsprint to fill, and if you're ESPN or the networks, a playoff system gives you the chance to add billions to
your billions. Guess who gets ignored? The players. Pro players get paid for their sacrifices regarding extra games, but college players don't. And
that's just for starters. Consider that every team in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1-A) has about 120 players. On the high side,
an average of five or six of those players make NFL training-camp rosters. Of the nearly 110 left, maybe 40 believe they should have made an NFL
training-camp roster. So, a large portion of that 40 joins those five or six in spending more time studying playbooks than textbooks. That leaves
roughly 70 student-athletes on a team each season doing whatever it takes to get a degree -- and it takes a lot for that group, even without an extra
game or three. Just one extra game means a slew of more practices, film sessions and team meetings for those student-athletes. "A playoff system
certainly would have its challenges, and it's already a challenge now," said Roddy Jones, a four-year starter at running back for Georgia Tech. He is
a three-time Academic All-Atlantic Coast Conference player, and he has earned his undergraduate degree in management along the way to seeking an MBA.
Not only that, Jones is part of an advisory council involving Georgia Tech athletes and administrators. He said an average day for a football
student-athlete can start as early as 6:30 a.m., stretch through the end of a tutoring session at 9 p.m. and continue with more studying at the
dormitory. "Time management is the biggest thing," Jones said. "People just see the games on Saturdays, but we're practicing Monday through Friday,
and we have classes every day as well. A traditional student has the weekend to get a project done. We don't have that liberty, because we're in a
hotel on Fridays, getting ready for the games. It can be a mental grind." And that's without a playoff system. That's also coming from Jones, among
the elite of student-athletes, who added, "A lot of those games with playoffs would come during finals weeks or at other times that are very stressful
for any student, particularly for a student-athlete." OK, so you couldn't care less whether Johnny can read or write. You just want to know whether
Johnny can punt, pass or kick. Tell me this: A playoff system would have how many games, and who's to say it wouldn't keep expanding before expanding
some more? While several athletics directors want a "plus one" approach featuring a championship game after the 35 bowl games, others want two
semifinal games and then a championship game. President Obama wants eight teams playing three rounds. Washington State coach Mike Leach wants 64
teams. No doubt, others wouldn't mind putting all of the Football Bowl Subdivision's 120 teams in the postseason. Where would you play these games?
The site of current bowl games, you say, or maybe NFL stadiums, neutral sites or various places on the dark side of the moon? How many -- if any -- of
these locations would be available? If you use bowls, which ones? And since the bulk of the TV and advertising revenue would flow to playoff games,
what would happen financially to the bulk of the bowls without playoff games? How would you choose the participants for a playoff system, and
wouldn't that create more controversy? I know. They have a playoff system in college basketball called March Madness, but here's something else I
know: The academic status of participating dribblers often has been a disaster. In fact, if the new academic rules that the NCAA adopted this fall
were in place last spring, Connecticut wouldn't be allowed to defend its national championship. Connecticut barely would have made the tournament. I
also know they have a playoff system for the lower levels of college football. The one for the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division
1-AA) began November 26, and it will end with the championship game January 7. Here's something else I know: The last NCAA report on the financial
status of its schools at the highest level was for the 2009-10 season, and it showed that only 22 out of those 120 athletics departments turned a
profit. Which raises the question: How many football programs for those schools would agree to lose revenue by slicing regular-season games to keep a
playoff system from lasting until Valentine's Day? Zero. Oh, and home attendance in the playoffs for teams at those lower levels is frequently lower
than their regular-season games. Such was the case last season for traditional FCS powers Delaware and Appalachian State, and such is the case this
year for North Dakota State, according to its sports information department. I say that because Georgia fans dominated the Georgia Dome this month
for the Southeastern Conference title game. Their LSU counterparts were sparse. Word back in Baton Rouge was that LSU fans were saving their money for
the Bowl Championship Series title game next week in New Orleans between LSU and Alabama. Which raises another question: How many folks would travel
multiple times to see their team during a playoff system involving the big boys? The answer? Just leave the current system alone.

So in the end, its about the players being able to handle "more" games while being in College and the games being at a bad time of year for
them.

Really? I think your argument on the post is ridiculous. The sixteen team format (which is what I have heard be tossed around) adds three games to
win it all. Since these top 16 ranked teams would have played in a bowl game it actually only adds 2 games for the finalists. NCAA would reduce the
regular season to 10 games by each D-1 team eliminating one of thier soft early season non conference games. The revenue sharing from the playoff
would more than compensate each team for the loss of the scheduled game. What is your argument now?

Really? I think your argument on the post is ridiculous. The sixteen team format (which is what I have heard be tossed around) adds three games to
win it all. Since these top 16 ranked teams would have played in a bowl game it actually only adds 2 games for the finalists. NCAA would reduce the
regular season to 10 games by each D-1 team eliminating one of thier soft early season non conference games. The revenue sharing from the playoff
would more than compensate each team for the loss of the scheduled game. What is your argument now?

The playoff / tournament structure seems to work fine for the FCS (former I-AA) division, and about 90% of all sports to determine a champion.

The truth is, it's all about the money. The BCS and the bowl games make too much money for the teams/schools to give up. What they're too greedy to
see is, that the first round of the playoffs can be the major bowl games, and they stand to make even more money in the subsequent rounds leading up
to the National Championship.

Soon enough the super conferences will be completed and they'll leave the NCAA and BCS behind and get the tournament structure that's
needed.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.